How does it logically make sense that an algorithm creates the subjective experience, that is all I am saying.

The subjective experience exists inside the mental faculties of our brain. The neurons are arranged to fire in patterns, and cannot be sovereign, they are part of a larger network. They have to communicate with other modules of the brain, and must do so by means that can be described by mathematics. How I know this is because single cell organisms, like neurons, lack the cognitive capabilities needed for other means of communication; nuanced language, persuasion, and outright coercion.

In short, they use bio-electric charges to indicate a firing state, influencing the probability of an action potential further on in the chain of command.

Comparing the creation of existence to the algorithm of how an apple falls from a tree is ridiculous.
Only in terms of complexity and scale. The term sn't properly defined. But I'd like to quote Feynman here, and have done with it.

"There was a class of philosophers who at one time sat at the dinner table in deep consternation over whether their steak was indeed real or just an illusion... we don't have to worry about these philosophers anymore since the ones who were unable to deduce the truth of the existence of the steak implied by their illusion didn't eat and have since died of hunger..."

The big bang made possible the thermodynamic exchange of energy, and thus time. That's existence.

Here is my main point, what possible scientific explanation would satisfy you.
Explanation of what? It seems to me that it is you who need to be satisfied by a scientific explanation. I am in fact, quite satisfied with the progress science has made thus far, and am quite confident it will continue to help us understand the nature of the universe, such as it is.

If there is no possible one that you can think of, how could you ever comprehend one?

There are mighty many concepts we cannot think of, but are able to comprehend once they manifest themselves to us. My ancestors from, say, six hundred years ago could never have imagined such devilry as cellular phones and nuclear power. But once the inventions and concepts rolled around, people grasped them without trouble.

This is not like how the Earth formed, where you just simply say the laws that governed the atoms and the position of them beforehand, this is something from nothing.
This is not at all like the origin of life, or things falling down, this is an answer that is completely unsolvable, and proof of that is that an answer isn't even imaginable.

It isn't because you say it isn't, or do you have something tangible to offer?

It's not unsolvable, whatever it is, I think I might have forgotten.

Again, be careful to say that things are unimaginable. It might just be that we need taller giants on whose shoulders to stand.

It's like having the Quake1 player trying to figure out his purpose, based on QC physics

Now you're flailing about in spiritual territory again. Purpose? We can never deduce a purpose to existence, because existence isn't depending on purpose. It just is. If we want to have a purpose, we have to decide it for ourselves. There are no natural laws dictating morality or ethics, those are constructions of an intelligent mind. The same is true for your theoretical purpose.

You can't have science as a religion, or as a meaning, in any form.

Science as a meaning. What the hell is that supposed to mean, exactly?

It is, but not for way which many people are using it. The big bang is not a replacement for the Genesis (I am not saying that we should believe in the Genesis or some other bullshit like it).

Of course it is. This is how everything sprang into existence. It wasn't god in six days, it was a shitload of matter in a very tiny place that went boom. That's a paradigm shift.

How shold people be using it, by the way? 

In short, they use bio-electric charges to indicate a firing state, influencing the probability of an action potential further on in the chain of command.
It exists inside the mental faculties of our brain as, just like you just said, a set of instructions (or algorithm).]
Now you're flailing about in spiritual territory again.
And yes, I shouldn't have said purpose.

There are mighty many concepts we cannot think of, but are able to comprehend once they manifest themselves to us. My ancestors from, say, six hundred years ago could never have imagined such devilry as cellular phones and nuclear power. But once the inventions and concepts rolled around, people grasped them without trouble.
My point was not about some physical device that people don't know the workings of. For example, some African guy could have made some story up about how all things came from one tiny spot long ago, and then exploded, creating the world. He could have imagined that, and all progress in science.
But what we can not imagine, is an explanation of existence without relying on something that is uncomprehendable (god, or spirits, or whatever). Because once you try to, it relys on infinite regression.

How can you put, something from nothing, in a textbook?
With the big bang theory, the tiny spot is space is something, it exists, it doesn't really help more than believing the earth just exists.
I don't want to put it in any other words than that, because when I use the terms 'subjective experience' you could look at it differently than I do, or if I use terms like 'purpose' and 'meaning'.

This is all I mean, and I don't think this can be misunderstood:

How can you put, something from nothing, in a textbook?
And if you can't, then science can not explain the nature of universe fully. 

How can you put, something from nothing, in a textbook?
And if you can't, then science can not explain the nature of universe fully.

Here's the deal; Just because it fucks with your head, doesn't mean it's incomprehensible!

Second, it's very important to note that it's not something from nothing. It's something from we-don't-know-yet-exactly, give us some time to figure out this super-string crap, and formulate a GUT, and maybe we'll get back to you.

What constitutes nothing is a matter of perspective. The deeper we look, the more there is where we used to think there was nothing. 

It's something from we-don't-know-yet-exactly, give us some time to figure out this super-string crap, and formulate a GUT, and maybe we'll get back to you.
It's either something from something (which is an infinite regress, whether it's some super string crap or some more precision), or something from nothing. I think you get my point now, I should have used concrete terms such as 'nothing' and 'something' rather than 'existence' and 'subjective experience' from the start

The deeper we look, the more there is where we used to think there was nothing.
nothing is NOT a matter of perspective, this is not space we are talking about here. This is the concept of NOTHING, everyone knows what that is.

Are you saying, we can put something from nothing in a textbook? To leave that open as a possibility? 

Don't worry about first principles too much.

We can have an enlightened science with, or without, understanding of "first cause" or whatever you wish to call it. 

but why must we divide all questions into these two categories?

1. questions that can be answered by science
2. questions that are not worth thinking about 

use science, reason, and logic as far as they take you. For some retards, the science that makes their cars drive is OK, but evolution isn't. That's retards. But for reasonable people, we could say, "Science currently takes us this far concretely... this far with educated guesses... and beyond that boundary, one might as well believe whatever the hell one wants."
Science has definately disproven a literal interpretation of all previous religions and also made most previous philosophies seem highly unlikely. Never the less, it still hasn't been able to answer every question, particularly, "For what reason does the universe exist," or "For what reason do the laws of physics exist." It does seem so strain credibility to say that these things just are, without a reason, one does not need to find a subjective or humanocentric meaning in them or purpose for them, but just a reason why the laws of physics themselves exist, because ultimately all explanations so far are related back to and fall within these laws. An explanation for these laws, if such a thing is possible, would go a long way toward expanding science into "ultimate philosophy" territory. But if these laws can just arbitrarily BE, then in a way they're defying themselves, by existing without cause. I suppose it is possible that the universe has no cause, but that seems so incredibly fucked, the "odds" of that being the case seem so small.

/end retard rant 

I don't find it so hard to believe that things in the universe "are." Humans are driven by reason as logical (and intelligent?) beings, and we tend to think that things happen for a reason. That may not be so. Just because humans act with a certain logic/purpose doesn't mean that everything does.

It's kind of like trying apply human behavior to cat behavior. We think that we're social animals, so cats must be social animals, which they aren't. We just kind of assume they are. Same thing with the universe. We try to have reason and whatnot, so we assume that the universe/existence should also have reason and whatnot, which doesn't have to be the case.

And if you want a quick answer to why things are the way they are, just accept the Anthropic Principle.

PS - I don't know anything about this thread and whatnot, so fire away at my ignorance. 

Humans are not logical beings. Humans are inherently error-prone, and science is our meager attempt to overcome our own hopeless deficiencies in between incoherent ramblings, cutting our ears off to send to loved ones, and starting wars for no bloody reason at all.

So if the universe is as consistent as physicists want us to believe, then what sort of equal-but-opposite force is counterbalancing our random bullshit on the other side of the equation? 

Didn't we discuss the difference between physics and metaphysics a couple dozen posts ago? Are we talking about it again? 

I didn't say we were infallible, I said we were logical. Whether that logic is absolute or obvious is besides the point - there is a thing called psychology for a reason.

So no, it might seem that people are completely stupid and do things at random, but there ARE driving reasons for actions and whatnot, no matter how stupid they may seem. People who are afraid of the dark may sleep with the lights on, even though that may seem completely retarded to most of us, but it makes them feel safer. It's weird, but the logic is there. That's why people can blow themselves up for Allah and whatnot.

And from what I understand the universe isn't 100% consistent - something WILL break over a long enough period of time. Or at least that's what they would have me believe. 

yeah, it's the same discussion, essentially. 

Tronyn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Obviously, it's a bit of a get out, but I guess the way you talked about "odds" at the end of your post do make me want to bring it up...

R.P.G.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton%27s_ant

Surprisingly complicated behaviour can arise from _very_ simple rules... maybe a sufficiently complicated set of ant rules might result in ear-severance? 

Ok, first thing's first;

Science is a method for explaining how the universe works. Not why it works.

rpg;

Humans are logical beings driven by emotional motives. We're not error-prone. If we were, we'd have been eaten by lions as soon as we climbed down from the trees. In fact, we're superbly adapted to the cognitive niche we inhabit. We use heuristics and stereotypes to solve problems, sometimes they fail us, but more often than not, they work.

As for wars and our ethical failings: There is no reason for the universe to cancel them out, because there are no natural laws governing ethics and morality. The universe enforces the laws of thermodynamics, weak and strong nuclear forces, gravity, electro-magnetics - making sure shit is attracted to other shit in an inverse proportion to their distance from eachother, that atoms don't crack open, that entropy increases over time, and so on. Our random bullshit is ours. The universe doesn't give a shit what we do with our lives. 

I was taking the piss a bit, but I still believe that humans are ultimately illogical. And no, I don't have any sort of well-thought-out argument to back it up.

We're not error-prone.

Of course we're error-prone. Didn't the brightest people at NASA burn up several million dollars and a few years of work in the Martian atmosphere because somebody forgot to change meters to feet? Computer systems make mistakes because they were made by humans. Humans have a certain randomness, and whenever they're introduced into a system there will be more randomness than can be predicted or accounted for, and hence there will be errors. Maybe we're talking about two different things here.

making sure shit is attracted to other shit in an inverse proportion to their distance from eachother

*ahem* to the inverse square of their distance. 

We don't have a larger inherit tendency to make mistakes than we have to do shit right.

Of course there are plenty of times we do get things wrong, but more often than not, we get things right. It's unfair to claim that we are biased towards mistakes. We become more prone to mistakes when stakes are higher and challenges greater. But for what we are supposed to do, which is eating and fucking as much as possible, we're extremely well adapted.

Dogs have an astounding failure rate when it comes to them using telephones. Are they error-prone, or simply not people-canines, as it were?

Also, we're not random, we're probabilistic.

*ahem* to the inverse square of their distance.

See? I got that wrong, but every other word right. That's good stats. 

The problem with claiming that we are error-prone is...

who defines an error?

We do.

And we're the only ones who do. 

Following that argument, we're also the only ones who define being correct, and in which case there's no way to know objectively if we're right or wrong about anything, it's all just subjective interpretation, and therefore we should all just fuck off early from work and drink beer and fuck as many people as possible.

Maybe you should try telling that to your math professor next time he takes off marks because you made a mistake? 

First, you said:

we're also the only ones who define being correct,

Then, you said:

therefore we should all just fuck off early from work and drink beer and fuck as many people as possible.

Er, what?

How does that follow? Why is the behavior you described the logical default? It's not.

(This is what Nietzsche was destroying when he wrote about that whole �bermensch thing, AFAIK.) 

If people are the only ones who define what error is, then conversely we're the only ones who define what correct is. If that's true, then by your argument we can't objectively know what truth is, so there's really no point in trying to find out. Hence, the beer and fucking thing.

I may be wrong however. 

That was me trying to clarify RPG's point for you, not what I actually believe. 

yeah, I meant what Zwiffle said. If we cannot define error objectively, then we can't define anything objectively. In which case all arguments breaks down into "well you can't define it in objective terms". Suddenly you can't prove anything, suddenly your math homework is neither correct nor incorrect, and it is neither acceptable nor unacceptable to go to work (or at least it's impossible to know any of this, and all arguments break down into "nooo, but it's not defined that way!"). Everything we do is neither correct nor incorrect because we can't define it, and so any behavior is justified.

But you will still get a zero on the math assignment if you don't do it correctly, and you're going to be unemployed very quickly if you stop showing up for work.

And if you're fine with everything being subjective, then wtf did you bring it up in the first place? 

As I said a few posts ago, it's possible to keep on living and using logic regardless of our lack of knowledge about first philosophies.

The reason: assumptions. 

I thought it was just because roughly only 1 in 100000 people give a shit. 

Sometimes, "not giving a shit" and "making assumptions" are the same thing.